is...a Libertarian
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Elmer, I understand all too well. If you want to discuss AMD, I will happily do it on the AMD thread.
CJ, I thought gaming was all about max frame rates -- or is that just hard core gaming?
The increased access to timely information brought about by the internet, and regulation FD have both contributed to a materially leveling the playing field between ordinary investors and professionals.
Elmer, you can best understand what I said by reading my original post.
http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4803220
Bobs, your right -- as we all know over the long-term stock prices are driven by earnings and interest rates. However, in the short run stocks can react to news -- look at SIRI for a timely example.
I don't know what is going to be announced on Monday. The only thing I know, same as everyone else, is that there is some news that warrants having a special conference call over. This in turn means they will probably be filing in 8K, so the companies think it is material.
Not knowing, it is just fun to speculate. Kind of like trying to figure out what gifts were under the tree when you were a kid.
Not at all tecate. Each stock is an independent case. I have made money before investing in Intel, and I expect that I will again.
Obviously you don't understand contrarian investing, but then we talked about you commenting on non technical subjects before -- haven't we.
Have a nice night Paul.
NsS, yes, but if you are a manufacturer that has invested money in the development of a board you would be a little ticked. I think AMD can't really afford to cause their infrastructure partners pain, so I expect they will keep both sockets around for a good while.
In my book, though it is contrarian, downgrades and neutral ratings are good. I feel that for large investments that I make, I do at least as much research as the analyst, and if our opinions differ than better for me. When analyst have a hold on a stock I like, or have downgraded it, I see that as opportunity.
When everyone and his brother likes a stock, the stock is probably near its peak and any bit of bad news can cause the stock to crash quickly.
Bob, the relevant question is how often does AMD have a conference call about a process improvement? IMO, it has to be a hell of an improvement or there has to be some other significant development to warrant a separate call. Otherwise, I assume they would have just presented it at the conference in SF.
Your not making a lot of sense, but if your intention is to argue I suppose you don't really have to. Are you the new champion?
The linked article has this quote from Dan Agronow, the Web site's vice president of technology, which makes no mention of your beloved EM64T being first choice.
He concedes that he was a bit cautious before deciding to put the eServer 325 systems into production earlier this year because it was a new platform from AMD, which is not typically considered an enterprise server chip maker.
"At that time we wanted to test a variety of platforms from different vendors and to us it's important that we can see it in production. IBM let us have [an Opteron] unit that we actually put in production so we could do an apples-to-apples comparison," Agronow says.
He liked what he saw.
"Here was a two-way [Opteron server], and it performed at about 25% higher capacity than the four-way IBM [Intel Pentium III Xeon]," Agronow says. "There's a significant price difference between a four-way and a dual CPU server."
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2004/0503weathercom.html?page=2
So Duke, did you just make up the "would have used Intel64 if it were available" quote? Should I consider it of similar caliber to the advice you were doling out, in your professional capacity, to Elmer the other day? LOL.
@Duke The Opteron was previously chosen as the database server because of the larger address size 64 bits.
If you read the article, you may have picked up on this.
"Agronow is currently only using the 32-bit capabilities of the Opteron box, but says that the transition to 64-bit computing - when applications demand it - will be easy."
The company spokeperson indicated that Intel would have been the selection even for the back end if they then had a solution
Which spokesperson would that be? Because Agronow said this:
"It gives us another option," Agronow says. "Any time there are multiple options and multiple vendors, it helps to drive the price down, and I'm pretty much focused on cost."
Paul, that image was quite a find. I suppose it puts the discussion to bed.
That is very interesting, a TOS violation on what basis - as I said all the name calling originated from you? I am not reporting you.
http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4732411
http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4733919
http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4784594
http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4734247
http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4734066
Linux clusters for HPC: Why and why not?
If your organization has IT money to burn and doesn't mind being locked into a proprietary system, then buy a supercomputer for your high-performance computing (HPC) applications. If you're not living in that kind of IT ivory tower, you should join the crowd that's checking out the new capabilities of HPC Linux clusters, says Len Rosenthal, co-founder and marketing vice president for PathScale Inc., a provider of hardware and software clustering systems based in Sunnyvale, Calif. In this interview, he points out the strengths and weaknesses in HPC of Linux clusters and the top two processors.
Why are and why aren't HPC users moving to Linux?
Rosenthal: Instead of large SGI Origin, 64-way Sun SPARC or big IBM systems, they can deploy much more cost- effective Linux clustering solutions at a fraction of a cost.
An HPC Linux cluster gives better performance than the old alternatives, like Cray supercomputers, at a fifth of the cost. Sure, Cray machines had and have good performance and a good architecture, but they are prohibitively expensive compared to commodity clusters, and they're proprietary.
However, only 30 percent of the HPC market is running a Linux cluster today. The other 70% wants to know: How do I get applications off of my huge system and onto clusters? That's why giving them technologies that enable that shift is critical to broader adoption of HPC on Linux clusters.
Could you cite an example of an application that has been moved successfully from supercomputers to Linux clusters?
Rosenthal: There are a bunch of new applications or, let's say, new problems that people are trying to solve with more cost-effective architectures. Weather analysis, weather modeling and climate analysis has traditionally been done on SMP systems, but some organizations have migrated to Linux clusters because improved cluster architectures enable better resolutions. Instead of weather grids of 15 miles by 15 miles, they can get a three-mile by three-mile grid. So, with the Linux cluster, their grid sizes are dramatically lower with a better interconnect. That's a more cost-effective approach.
How does an HPC-on-Linux cluster compare in cost to a typical low-end cluster, like the kind used for storage or Oracle Real Applications Clusters (RAC)?
Rosenthal: The hardware cost of a Linux cluster is going to be the same. The only difference is the interconnect. On Oracle RAC today, for example, gigabit Ethernet is used as the interconnect for Linux hardware. In clustering, Infiniband is considered by many to be the next evolution of interconnect. Gigabit Ethernet is dramatically less expensive, probably free on most motherboards. You still have to pay for the switching, but the performance is just unacceptable for any kind of scaling. That's the reason why you don't see any Oracle clusters scaling beyond eight or 10 nodes. That's why Infiniband is attractive because the latency gets dramatically reduced and the bandwidth gets dramatically increased.
As for pricing, I can only speak for PathScale, which hasn't released pricing yet for (the Infiniband-compliant interconnect technology) InfiniPath. I can say that it will be below $1,000 a node.
Is there a preferred processor for HPC on Linux clusters?
Rosenthal: There is a difference between an AMD approach versus an Intel approach. Intel does not have HyperTransport technology on its chips. So, what that means is that they have to rely on a PCI-X or PCI Express adapter card to get lower latency. To implement any PCI is an additional chip crossing, which means that you need another bridge chip in there. So, that is inherently slower, up to about 400 nanoseconds slower. HyperTransport is the fastest way to connect to the CPU.
PathScale runs on AMD. Typically, clusters built with AMD Opteron are going to be more scalable and efficient than any clusters built on Intel. You just can't get the best memory latencies on the Intel system. In my opinion, AMD today is already the best 64-bit building block for HPC clusters. I think Intel came out with a 64-bit compatible X86 chip because Intel's Itanium wasn't getting any market acceptance.
In clusters, is the importance of bandwidth diminishing as the importance of latency increases?
Rosenthal:Yes. Picture, if you will, a water pipe. Bandwidth is the size of the pipe, and latency is the speed of what is going through it and how much water is going through it. Bandwidth is important, but we've reached a point of where the pipe is getting pretty large, 10 gigabits per second. Bandwidth is not the bottleneck and is not stopping scalability. Latency, how fast you can get information in and out of that pipe, is the bottleneck.
Who are the buyers for HPC Linux clusters today?
Rosenthal: In the business world, manufacturing companies like Ford, General Motors and Boeing use HPC clusters to do large simulations. Oil and gas companies, like Chevron-Texaco, are doing reservoir simulations and in the past have used SMP systems primarily, but they are starting to use Linux clusters.
Then, there are traditional HPC buyers: scientists, engineers and/or researchers at bio-science or drug companies, universities, government labs, NASA, and military agencies. Also, pharmaceutical and biotech are hot markets now for HPC on Linux clusters.
http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid39_gci1032872,00.html
@Chipguy Yep I was clearly wrong
So would that be
IDIOT, LIAR, IGNORANT, LACKING AN UNDERSTANDING OF EVEN THE BASICS OF BUSINESS or ALL OF THE ABOVE?
You just don't get it do you. You rely on oblique personal attacks when someone doesn't agree with your position. You are unwilling to even consider that your wrong and instead lash out -- notice all the name calling above originates from your posts -- they were all names you called me. The downside of this tactic is that you can have your face rubbed in it and hard -- worst of all quite publicly.
Then your off to nurse a grudge and return with another proclimation of liar or idiot at the first opportunity or rather what you perceive to be the first opportunity. When your perception is wrong, it gets shoved back in your face again and the cycle repeats.
What did you think you had to gain by claiming as ignorant anyone who didn't believe as you did wrt IBM's trademark? Nothing. You did it because ...
Well I suppose, since your incapable of grasping the context of my post, we can look at what I originally said -
"The IBM brand name is huge, and any buyer would be foolish to lose it. It would give a company like Lenovo a brand which they could market worldwide. I am sure there would eventually be a phase out period, but probably not for several years (think AT&T/AT&T Wireless)."
That period has been established at 5 years.
http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4732356
Then low and behold some "guy" said -
They WILL not get the right to use the IBM name in ANY fashion.
Now undoubtedly this "guy" would like to alter history, but unfortunately it just doesn't work that way.
http://investorshub.com/boards/replies.asp?msg=4732356
So, once again, in your own words would this "guy" be a IDIOT or a LIAR? Or perhaps he is IGNORANT or doesn't KNOW EVEN THE BASICS OF BUSINESS?
One possibility which hasn't been mentioned yet, but is equally possible, is all of the above?
The floggings will continue until you behave yourself.
Chipguy, as long as I we're at it, what would you call a "guy" who claimed NASA's Altix system was "about half the price" of Red Storm?
Again, in your own words, would that person be an IDIOT or a LIAR?
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=3667340
http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4391566
LOL. It seems your back to name calling -- the refuge of cowards.
Here is another question for you -- what would you call a "guy" who publicly proclaimed that only those who didn't know the "basics of business today", otherwise referred to as the "ignorant", would assume IBM would sell use of their name and trademark?
Using your own vernacular, would that "guy" be an IDIOT or a LIAR?
Edit: Perhaps a champion of the faithful will step up and help the poor innocent, chipguy.
Petz, your data coincides with my speculation.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20841013
@Chipguy That would depend on:
1) When it was said.
Oh, sometime late last year - 15 months or so ago.
2) The full context in which it was said.
A discussion on which chip was going to be more successful. The discussion was precipitated by some outlandish statement on how Itanium was the best thing since sliced bread.
3) Whether it referred to outsell in terms of revenue or units, systems or MPUs.
It referred very specifically to the actual number of physical chips.
Now in terms of the language you were using earlier, since your so fond of using labels, would the correct descriptor be "IDIOT" or "LIAR"?
Well one obvious answer is that they were using HP equipment for the particular job the RISC systems were used for, and they decided to stay with their vendor. At the time HP didn't offer an Opteron solution, so it was not even considered.
In large organizations, purchases are made from different vendors, often promoting different architectures.
morrowinder, it says quite clearly in the press release that the weather channel replaced 138 RISC based processors with 42 I2s.
No reference to Opteron.
Windsock, I didn't say anything about Xeon. But nice try.
This is a really bad script -- I am to play the bully, Chipguy an innocent amongst the faithful and you their champion. LOL.
Chipguy, help me out here. I am trying to apply your logic to a ridiculous statement made by -- well you decide.
What would you call a "guy" who claimed Intel's Itanium "chip" was going to outsell AMD's Opteron by a factor of 8:1?
An IDIOT or a LIAR?
No really which one.
Time to send out the boys from Bellevue again.
You were talking about a 2-year period, but even if you take a discreet point in time, what your saying is that they gained less than 1 point of share through 2Q04 and 2 points through 3Q04 share. More FUD.
AMD trimmed Intel's share in PC-based servers in the third quarter, taking 8 percent of unit sales, up from 6.9 percent, according to IDC. Opteron was introduced by AMD last April.
http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=6960222
Its interesting that you would abbreviate North America. So, your claim is really very limited in scope -- but then you knew that.
Addressing your comments as stated, you are implying that despite having 3 Tier 1 OEMs offering AMD server products, in addition to the whitebox makers that have offered Athlon MP all along, AMD has only been able to grow market share 1 point.
Why do you even bother to post this kind of FUD? Really why?
@morrowinder I would sell right now if I had AMD.
Why not sell short? Don't let this great profit opportunity slip away.
Dgagnon, you do have to weed through a good many posts to find information that will be useful in helping you make your investment decisions. Profits are made by being able to recognize opportunity before the masses do (either long or short).
This board and other similar forums are helpful because they collect all the rumors, articles and other data in one place where it is easy to find -- though it also is a place for the partisans to gather and debate who's is bigger.
That's interesting, because someone was talking about how competitive IPF would be in the value space just the other day. I guess the chips competitive, but systems are not. Funny no one brought that up before.
Paul, true that LG, a korean manufacturer, has done well in the CE space. However, given the choice, with money no object, would you buy a Sony branded CE item or a LG branded one. For that matter would you by Panasonic or LG.
I think the business market dynamics are even tougher. Look how hard it has been to get AMD into the market, even considering Tier 1 backing. How easy is it going to be for Lenovo after they lose the IBM brand?
I don't know what you are talking about, but I can guess. Mozilla's ad blocking software is soooo nice.
Like I said it remains to be seen. If Lenovo can pull off the transition, and the odds are against them, then they will have made a great decision -- if they don't they will have wasted an awful lot of money.
Remember Lenovo gets use of the brand for 18-months and then limited use (dual branding with certain restrictions) for an additional 32-months. After that they no longer can use the IBM brand.
Lenovo has at most 60 months to become a household name. That will be a herculean effort, but once again, they might pull it off.
I will go on record as saying they won't.
Yes, and AMD for the first time has recruited a Gorilla as an ally. Sun is betting their future as a hardware vendor on Opteron.
HP is arming both sides and IBM has declared neutrality. Dell is still in Intel's camp, but the snide comments coming from their executives are giving Intel pause.
The fight is just beginning -- and it will be entertaining, not to mention profitable for the nimble.
No, its the reality of the business market that has been repeated many times in many different industries.
Agreed.
An enterprise that has gone through the process of evaluating, qualifying and adopting Opterons is not going to stop buying them because Intel has come out with a competitive product. AMD has done great in going from essentially no server market share to 8% with two of the Tier 1 OEMs offering full product lines. AMD is part of the enterprise now and they will never go back to being solely a consumer offering.
If you think the world hasn't changed, then great -- invest like it was 2003. In my view a fundamental change has occured and I am investing based on my views.
Good luck.
Morrowinder, the difference is that once it becomes acceptable to buy AMD it will always be acceptable to buy AMD. From Intel's perspective there is no putting Humpty Dumpty back together again. Opterons are already in commercial use with 25% of the Fortune 100. This is only going to grow over time.
Even if Intel gets back to its game, or rather whenever they do, the landscape will have changed.
Yes, I would. But by the same token, don't Intel investors waste time thinking about what AMD is doing (there are certainly a lot of them that visit the AMD board)?
Regardless of your size, unless your a monopoly, you have to be constantly looking over your shoulder to see what your competitors are doing or you might be marginalized.
Yes, when AMD grows enough to where its relationship to INTC is similar to NVDA and ATYT.